From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 16:55:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 981 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.177) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 47102 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jul 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000710235551.47101.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:55:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.98] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:55:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >No: I think {da voi broda} means "Ex 'broda'(x)", where '' >indicate nonveridicality. For example, "Some fucker has farted" >could be "da voi gletu cu ganxo zei [sneeze]". {da voi broda} >is nonreferential (= nonspecific). Ok, that is a difference from {su'o le gletu} (shouldn't it at least be {malgletu}?) But {su'o le gletu} is a non-specific reference to a member of a specific group. >What are you saying is equivalent to what? I don't get what you're >arguing for. I was trying to say that {ro lo broda} is as specific or as non-specific as {ro le broda}. In one case the set where we take the referents from is more general and in the other case it is more particular and specific to the situation at hand, but once the set is known we refer to each member so there can be no specificity or non-specificity. Similarly {su'o lo broda} and {su'o le broda} are both non-specific references, to referents selected from the same sets as before. I don't think you've argued against any of this, but I'm just trying to point out that it is their default quantifiers that give {le} and {lo} their specificity/unspecificity, and that it can be overridden by explicit quantifiers. >As for {ko'a poi broda} ?= {ro lo broda} = {ro broda} = {ro da poi >broda}, I still can't see any basis for it. In fact, I'm not wholly >sure what {ko'a poi broda} means, Neither am I, but I couldn't find anything else it could mean. Of course we are assuming that {ko'a} has not already been assigned, in which case things get really interesting. >though I'd be happiest if >{ko'a poi broda cu brode} simply means {ko'a broda gi'e brode}. That's {ko'a noi broda}. {poi} is restrictive. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com